DA Claims He'll Charge Drone Operators Near Wildfires For Murder
from the really-now? dept
Should someone who flies a drone near a wildfire be charged with murder if someone dies in that fire? At least one California District Attorney is insisting he's going to bring such charges should that situation occur.It's wildfire season out here in California, and the story of the summer seems to be about drones and wildfires. There have been a whole bunch of stories about private drones somehow interfering with firefighting aircraft. The stories are almost always extremely vague with very few details. It's entirely possible that these stories are completely accurate -- and I certainly don't deny that it's possible that a drone could interfere with firefighting aircraft in some manner. However, something about these stories really has the feel of your typical local news exaggeration/moral panic. The coverage is always by local TV news reporters. The details are slim, but the moral panic aspect is ratcheted up quite high.
And... soon after, politicians and grandstanding law enforcement get involved. I have no problem with something like an education campaign about the potential dangers of flying drones near wildfires and how they could hinder firefighting efforts. That seems perfectly reasonable. But politicians are not just looking to educate, they're offering a $75,000 bounty for identifying such drone operators and proposing a new law that would make flying a drone over a forest fire a federal offense with fines and up to five years in prison.
And... that's not all. In the press release from San Bernadino County that offers up that $75,000 bounty, the local District Attorney Mike Ramos says that he'll go after drone operators with murder charges if people die in a fire "due to" the drone operations:
District Attorney Mike Ramos warned drone operators that they could and would be prosecuted for murder if their drones led to the death of a fire-fighting flight crew or anyone on the ground.Of course, determining that a drone "led to the death" of anyone seems like a pretty big stretch -- and as far as I can tell, in all of the hysteria of drones and wildfires in the last month or so, there have been no deaths at all. But it seems like a huge stretch to argue that flying a drone over a fire can lead to murder charges. In the past, murder charges related to fires have been focused on things like arsonists who deliberately set the fire, rather than those who were just looking to observe or film the fire, and through their own ignorance got in the way of firefighting efforts.
Again, this isn't to diminish the possibility of real risks and potential damages from drones interfering with firefighters, but so much of this reads like a typical local news moral panic, and tossing in the threat of murder charges for flying a personal drone to observe a wild fire seems to go beyond any sense of reason. It feels like law enforcement issuing a bogus threat to try to sound serious.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, drones, interference, mike ramos, moral panic, murder, san bernadino, wildfires
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You got it, reporters and their photographers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What could go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Murder charges, murder charges for everyone!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Murder charges, murder charges for everyone!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Murder charges, murder charges for everyone!'
So anyone at those crimes scenes would not be classified as a reporter as they would be checking the facts for themselves instead of waiting to hear what they will be told to say.
So of course they can charge "those people" with obstruction of justice and murder for causing delays in catching whoever is responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Murder charges, murder charges for everyone!'
If a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, it can indict you too. This prosecutor's just as out of control as all the rest of them. Do you feel safe yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Murder charges, murder charges for everyone!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If it bleeds, it leads."
Remember that exchange in "Absence of Malice"?
Q: Is that true?
A: No, but it's accurate.
So:
Drones are flying. That's accurate.
Q: Are they interfering with fighting fires?
A: Ask me again after I figure out how much advertising we can sell based on our ratings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If it bleeds, it leads."
I do, yes. Great movie/story. Sally damned near redeemed herself with that one. Paul was brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At best I could see them getting a lower sentence of manslaughter, though I don't know if manslaughter would really apply here either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In my area there is a charge of "involuntary manslaughter". The definition is that one did not intend to take a life but could not avoid it, and was not negligent either (manslaughter has implied negligence).
Yes, in this article's description even involuntary manslaughter charges might be a stretch for a drone operator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there any other kind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent
Look, you want to charge the operator with some kind of negligence, endangerment, or interference charge, that makes sense. Maybe even something like manslaughter if it really results in a death could be reasonable. But murder? Bet the DA graduated from the Cooley Law School or got his degree in a cereal box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intent
California has felony murder provisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(California)
With felony murder, if someone dies in the commission of some *other* felony, you can be charged with felony murder. Kind of.
But I don't see how they could possibly apply here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...unless they have razor sharp blades and dive bomb the fire crews or drop fuel. Then perhaps the DA isn't wasting taxpayers time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prosecutor seems to be another way of saying traitor or retard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prosecutor seems to be another way of saying traitor or retard!
Oh well, its only a matter of time until the next one, then we can listen to their bitching about the goys being mean to them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's humanity at its most basic: "It's not a problem until it actually happens to me, and I can't do anything about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. The paint (all internal walls were repainted only months prior) was a special CIA mixture that enhances combustion. It was made to be a firetrap because they wanted to obliterate evidence.
[obligatory]: Obama knows this is true, but he can't complain because they'll kill him if he does!
Chyaa, right. I probably ought to mix in some HRC here too, but Zzzzz ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is a prosecutor we're talking about. Facts are irrelevant details which merely cloud the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are all criminals in the eyes of the government...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye improved search and rescue
Their potential to interfere with fighting wild fires outweighs any possible benefits they may have.
And drones flying over fires filming children in a pool, murder the drone operator and his/her drone with a shotgun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about birds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My counter to this braindead idiot's ranting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I don't pull over for an ambulance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want to strike the fear of having to go through a trial and everything (being charged, paying lawyers, etc.) - most normal folks don't need or want that kind of complication in their lives (and the perhaps fallout from it - like maybe getting fired, public shaming, etc.).
It's fear-mongering. Hoping to keep "the honest folks honest"; but "the bad guys" may take it as a challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“I just want you to know, that if an intentional act of a drone was to cause one of these wonderful men and women fighting fires to go down and be injured or killed, or another civilian on the ground, we will prosecute you for murder. I need you to know that,” Michael Ramos said.
This statement is less ambiguous than the paraphrasing done in the press release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No drones at all ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder.....
MPAA $$$ is soooo nice, and, they do all the paperwork for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does nothing to solve actual problems, furthers a rumor based conspiracy that drones are run by evil people trying to murder people.
Some yahoo is going to pull a gun and shoot someone flying a drone and then claim they were protecting people.
Don't think it will happen?
Exhibit A -
http://www.inquisitr.com/1289033/crazed-woman-attacks-man-flying-drone-at-beach/
She had to stand up and protect everyone from pervs with drones, and was willing to assault someone and lie to the cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm beginning to think you're my long lost, separated at birth, twin brother. I wish.
No, I cannot see that a little plastic thingy has any chance whatsoever of standing up to the backwash of a prop driven water-bomber airplane, and holy !@#$ is this !@#$ overblown!
I suggest we follow the money, *AND* discredit a few very credulous supposed "journalists." It'll be fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Enterprising Pyromaniacs
So, don't buy any of those drones!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]